Marbury Vs Madison Case Essay

In regards to Maryland's argument of state sovereignty, Chief Justice Marshall argued that the Constitution is "an instrument of the people". Although, it was ratified by the state conventions it is for the people, not the states. Lastly, Marshall stated that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy", which was a direct attack to the federal government. There were no concurrent opinions written for this

In 1800, the presidential election between Adams and Jefferson was a tie, and the government almost broke down. The Supreme Court had no clear purpose or power no one had even thought to build it a courtroom in the new capital city. The book tells the thrilling story of Marbury v. Madison, through which he empowered the Supreme Court and transformed the idea of the separation of powers into a working blueprint for our modern state (The Great Decision). Marbury v. Madison was certainly an integral part of this early stage in American history, but the authors seem to focus more on the actions of Jefferson, Adams, and Marshall. When President Thomas Jefferson took workplace as third president of the U.S., it painted the transfer of powerfulness

The signifigance or Marbury vs. Madison is the ruling gave of the Supreme Court of the U.S.A the power of Judicial review and also gave courts some power to try and take down legislation that was unconstitutional. In Marbury the Supreme Court declared a law passed by the government was unconstitutional and should be not be enforced called the Judiciary Law of 1789.The decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally judicial and executtive branches of forming the American government. Marbury vs. Madison has been used as justification for the amassing of power by the supreme court. Marshall justified his ruling that the Supreme Court could not order Madison to deliver Marbury's because part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court's original jurisdiction to include cases like

John Marshall was a Federalist and should have taken Marbury’s side of the case, but it did not happen. Instead, he feared that the Court would be chastised for giving Marbury the commission. He did not want his authority to be ignored by the Republican Party if he did grant the document to be pushed through. He also feared that people might think that the court acted out in fear of the government. Marshall was in a dilemma all on his own with trying to make the right

Under the Judiciary Act of 1801, Marbury sued Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He was asking the Court to force Madison to accept the appointment. The court denied and held that it lacked strength because the section of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789 authorized the Court to issue such a writ was invalid. Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the Constitution must always

However, another reason the case was interesting because of Justice Marshall, he was the reason the case occurred in the first place and if he disregards the writ of mandamus, it will make the Supreme Court weak thereby increasing the strength of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Although the court could not help Marbury get his appointment using the writ of mandamus it was able to enact a judicial review. This judicial review enacted by John Marshall had various effects. It helped integrate a balanced system of checks and balance of each branch of the government even with a separation of the power system in place. But these open a loophole for other branches to interpret the constitution using the excuse of checking and balancing the judicial system.

Marshal argument was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was intertwined with the court other two branch and was unconstitutional. This established the Judicial Review, Jefferson and Marshall couldn’t argue with the rules (page

In fact, Marshall was part of the state convention that ratified the constitution in 1788. The lawyer at the time also played a significant role in changing the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution. Additionally, the

He expanded the power of the Supreme Court by declaring that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Supreme Court Justices were the final deciders. In the Marbury vs. Madison case, Marshall wrote "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” John Marshall was clearly in favor of judicial power, and believed that the Supreme Court should have the final say in cases involving an interpretation of the Constitution. While establishing this, he kept the separation of powers in mind, as he wanted equal representation among the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches. In the Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall declared that the Judicial Branch could not force Madison to deliver the commission.

The Supreme Court did not share Lincoln’s opinion. Especially, the Chief Justice Roger Taney who, in his role as the federal circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional in a decision called Ex Parte Merryman. He did so after his recommendation for a trial of Merryman in order to determine if there were any legitimate reasons for his arrest met if refusal form Merryman captors. In the end, The President ignored Taney ruling, and Congress never contested Lincoln’s Habeas Corpus decision. Lincoln also met with strong resistance form the general public in regards to his executive order.

So Marshall denied the petition and refused to issue the writ. In section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 it notes that writs can indeed be issued, but that particular section of the act was not consistent with the Constitution, making it invalid. I believe that John Marshall implemented this final decision because it was first of all highly appropriate, as well as it more or less was a good solution for both parties. Yes, Marbury deserved to have his commission but the lawsuit was not necessarily an appropriate way to go about receiving it. Marshall knew that if he were going to protect the power of the Supreme Court then he would have to declare the act

On the other hand, Marshall ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be “an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive” (Marbury v. Madison, history.com). In spite of settling this dispute, ultimately, the Supreme Court elevated and contributed to its power by establishing its right to judicial review of laws made by Congress, that power not implicitly included in the Constitution beforehand (Marbury v. Madison, www.inspireeducators.com). All things considered, the Marbury v. Madison case granted the Supreme Court of the United States (S.C.O.T.U.S.) the power of judicial review, therefore allowing the Court to declare laws passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. This had and still has a tremendous and significant impact on the United States because if not for it, the laws passed could not be declined or conferred further about, or in other words, struck down and reviewed. Our judicial system would be limited.

Nevertheless, Chief Justice John Marshall, through his genius was able bring the judicial branch on par with the legislative and executive branches with the self-imposed power of judicial review. With a masterful legal opinion in the Marbury case, Marshall created a system of common law review, which set the legal standard for future cases like Dred Scott v. Sanford and Brown v. Board of Education (O’Brien 167). The outcome of these cases has impacted the lives of Americans over the years. People’s will and desire has evolved over time, from a racially structured society in the 1800’s to the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. The moral views of Americans have changed over time, with a positive collective will.

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

Madison court case that took place in 1803. The law that was declared by the Supreme Court at this hearing was that a court has the power to declare an act of Congress void if it goes against the Constitution. This case took place because President John Adams had appointed William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, and the new president, Thomas Jefferson, did not agree with this decision. William Marbury was not appointed by the normal regulation, which was that the Secretary of State, James Madison, needed to make a notice of the appointment. James Madison did not follow through and make a notice of Marbury’s appointment; therefore, he sued James Madison, which was where the Supreme Court came in place.